- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What’s being missed about this SEC penalty stuff
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:24 pm to JiminyCricket
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:24 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
Haven't they already? Is Ole Miss relevant this year without Chambliss?
Not sure they are with him. But this isn't new and isn't directly impactful in terms of the committee.
Ultimately, without getting into whether the committee exposes itself to a lawsuit (I don't think it does), I think the threat of not considering teams with those players is enough to make it not worth the risk for a team like LSU.
2
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:28 pm to mdomingue
I would argue the NCAA, conferences and CFP are colluding to exclud players who were subject to a court order to play.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:29 pm to mdomingue
quote:
Ultimately, without getting into whether the committee exposes itself to a lawsuit (I don't think it does), I think the threat of not considering teams with those players is enough to make it not worth the risk for a team like LSU.
I don't disagree but that's a different conversation. By allowing a player like Chambliss to play (not picking on him in particular, just using him as an example) and excluding others, you've already watered down the integrity of the game and the results. That's my issue, not that LSU needs or doesn't need these guys. They're allowing certain players who shouldn't frankly be eligible to play but denying others and that fundamentally impacts the element of fair play. It throws variables into the formula of competitive fairness and that is a problem to me.
If Chambliss can take the snaps for Ole Miss on a court order, they shouldn't hold out others that have court orders either.
Why should a team like Ole Miss get to play a fricking QUARTERBACK, the most important position in sports, after he was ruled ineligible multiple times before getting a court order if the conference can ignore the court orders of others? That is a breach of fairness and a stain on the integrity of the game.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:03 pm to mdomingue
I don't doubt lawyers were involved for the SEC but I also have to believe a certain amount of this is "bluff" and the reason I say this is the draconian penalties (50% of the program budget). No way in hell they do this to a school, regardless if it's LSU or Vandy.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:13 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:Not if the judge incorporates the SEC in to the action.
Will it hold up?
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:13 pm to JiminyCricket
ineligible is ineligible, regardless of reason. SEC cannot pick and choose who.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:18 pm to LSUFanHouston
It’s a pretty weak loophole given that it only takes one jump of logic to see the schools will be majorly disincentivized/strong-armed into not playing nor signing the players. Thus, still affecting the player and infringing on their rights to earn.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:18 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
By allowing a player like Chambliss to play (not picking on him in particular, just using him as an example) and excluding others, you've already watered down the integrity of the game and the results. That's my issue, not that LSU needs or doesn't need these guys. They're allowing certain players who shouldn't frankly be eligible to play but denying others and that fundamentally impacts the element of fair play. It throws variables into the formula of competitive fairness and that is a problem to me.
If Chambliss can take the snaps for Ole Miss on a court order, they shouldn't hold out others that have court orders either.
Why should a team like Ole Miss get to play a fricking QUARTERBACK, the most important position in sports, after he was ruled ineligible multiple times before getting a court order if the conference can ignore the court orders of others? That is a breach of fairness and a stain on the integrity of the game.
I think I agree with all this. Judge shopping is a part of this as well and is not a good look at all.
I think we are in agreement that there needs to be an ultimate fix. I am an advocate of all parties agreeing to use a binding arbitration method to settle these sorts of contentions. I've been involved in one of those, and it significantly sped up the process.
Also, the NCAA needs to speed up the eligibility determination process with a time restriction set on them and an automatic favorable ruling for the person seeking to be eligible if they go over the time(in the hopes that it lights a fire under their collective butts).
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:19 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
They clearly believe they have found a legal loophole here.
Let's test your hypothesis:
* Players cannot be paid or receive NIL from 3rd parties
* Teams that roster players that are paid or receive NIL will face penalties and forfeit games.
By your logic, we've solved the entire pay for play issue we've seen up until now.
No offense, but that's pretty dumb.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:20 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
If Chambliss can take the snaps for Ole Miss on a court order, they shouldn't hold out others that have court orders either.
Exactly this.
Rule all games played using a player deemed ineligible as forfeits, or none of them.
There aren’t levels of ineligible according to the rules. You either are or you aren’t.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:27 pm to LSUFanHouston
Let them go to ULL and play. Everyone else can move forward. We kept them away from OM so that’s still a W. Otherwise, not worth all the BS.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:34 pm to michael corleone
The SEC is just a group of schools who associate together for profit sharing. The SEC is governed by its bylaws. If the member schools all vote for a rule and a penalty associated for violating that rule, no court would have authority to change that. That is why the new rules focus on the schools instead of the player. Theoretically, a player can still play, but the school would suffer significantly. This is an internal matter for the SEC and is not a player eligibility issue.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:35 pm to Drizzt
quote:
Hope Sankey enjoys depositions, discovery, and paying damages.
This is the best outcome for all parties involved. The players are missing out on money, and a chance that everyone else has to make that money. So let the SEC and BIG 10 ban them and split the cost of paying the players what they are owed by this decision, and ultimately by the NCAA 's absurd 5/5 rule with no consideration to the graduating class.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:40 pm to moneyg
quote:
Let's test your hypothesis:
It’s not mine, it’s the SEC’s
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:42 pm to ItTakesAThief
quote:
I would argue the NCAA, conferences and CFP are colluding to exclud players who were subject to a court order to play.
Yeah, I do wonder if this indirectly opens up a collusion / antitrust claim
The only way any of this foolishness ends is with an antitrust exemption.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:45 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
It’s not mine, it’s the SEC’s
Ok. Can you explain how it's different than ANY eligibility rule that has been in question recently?
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:47 pm to mdomingue
quote:
The SEC has lawyers; I would expect they have someone to help them figure out how to handle this in a way that will likely hold up
The NCAA has lawyers also....how does that work out for them.. Nope, this is clearly a power trip thing. If the SEC REALLY wanted to fix this, there is a very simple solution. The 5 for 5 is retroactive to the recent seniors who entered the draft because they didn't have full disclosure about their options. This of course only is relevant to this one year since the policy has now been set well before next year's draft.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:58 pm to lsuatty1311
quote:
The SEC is just a group of schools who associate together for profit sharing. The SEC is governed by its bylaws. If the member schools all vote for a rule and a penalty associated for violating that rule, no court would have authority to change that. That is why the new rules focus on the schools instead of the player. Theoretically, a player can still play, but the school would suffer significantly. This is an internal matter for the SEC and is not a player eligibility issue.
Disagree with all of this. First, if schools in college or teams in the pros could just concoct their own set of rules that are untouchable, the pro leagues wouldn't need special anti-trust protection which they HAVE! The NFL draft for example would be blatantly illegal otherwise because you are restricting which team a player can play for...obviously "restraint of trade" which is ILLEGAL. "Theorestically, a player can still play" is nonsense because practically the school couldn't afford to play him. IMO, the SEC is on very shaky ground simply because the NCAA changed the rules in the miiddle of the game. The current senior class was not afforded the extra year of COVID that 2020 and 2021 was (2022 was not) and at the same time were lied to about their potential eligibility for the 2026 season. The NCAA KNEW they were going to change the policy in June or July....all they had to do to avoid this mess was to announce the policy in March. Problem solved.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 3:00 pm to mdomingue
quote:
the CFP has chimed in and said they will potentially ban teams with players tey consider to be "former professional athletes".
So you can make $5 million a year in college football but if you make a couple thousand dollars at a mini camp, you're suddenly a former pro player?
Posted on 8/27/26 at 3:07 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
There is nothing saying the player is ineligible
If the SEC makes the penalties so onerous that the players can’t play, it’s a de facto way to deny the players an avenue to play. Don’t know how legal that is?
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 3:09 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News